Brandt Jobe and Olin Browne i don't watch a lot of US pga golf on TV who are these guys i have never heard of either of them and they are 1st and 2nd respectfully in the US open the only thing i know about Jobe is he put some smoke on his drives.....
Olin Browne is the guy that shot the 59 in sectionals to get into the open... I've heard of them both, but I don't know much about either of them. I'd never heard of Ben Curtis before he got his Claret Jug... anything can happen.
Jobe already started to show the throngs of presuure when he missed the green on 16 (unforced error #1) and three putted on number 17 (missed a 2-3 footer). He closed with a nice par on 18. But imagine how frail he'll be tomorrow. All these people will be calling him tonight and congratulating him on his round. If he even stays in the thick of things tomorrow, I'll be very impressed.
Olin Browne is the guy that shot the 59 in sectionals to get into the open... I've heard of them both, but I don't know much about either of them. I'd never heard of Ben Curtis before he got his Claret Jug... anything can happen.
This is the US Open at Pinehurst #2, not a tricked up British Open course that didn't reward good shots. You won't see a "nobody" win this week.
This is the US Open at Pinehurst #2, not a tricked up British Open course that didn't reward good shots. You won't see a "nobody" win this week.
Great assessment league. Royal St. George's that year played so tricky off the tee that it was a matter of sheer luck almost that those on the board on Sunday were up there. Ben was a product of an unfair setup, much as Paul Lawrie was in winning the 1999 Open, and has proven to be nothing more than that since then.
The winner this week will be a player of considerable skill, unshakeable confidence, mind-numbing patience, and great intestinal fortitude. I'm looking forward to a great three days of golf, what with a fine leaderboard already stacked up and likely only getting better as we draw closer to Sunday.
Great assessment league. Royal St. George's that year played so tricky off the tee that it was a matter of sheer luck almost that those on the board on Sunday were up there. Ben was a product of an unfair setup, much as Paul Lawrie was in winning the 1999 Open, and has proven to be nothing more than that since then.
The winner this week will be a player of considerable skill, unshakeable confidence, mind-numbing patience, and great intestinal fortitude. I'm looking forward to a great three days of golf, what with a fine leaderboard already stacked up and likely only getting better as we draw closer to Sunday.
Well, I agree that Curtis was a product of a tricked up course, but Lawrie was a product of the biggest choke in the history of the Open Championship. However, even if Van De Velde had won that tourney, he'd be a nobody today just like Lawrie is. Even so, Van De Velde was dominating that tourney and he wasn't winning because of luck as Curtis did, but in the end I guess you could say that Lawrie was a product of both a very tricked up Carnoustie and a major choke by Mr. Van De Velde.
Well, I agree that Curtis was a product of a tricked up course, but Lawrie was a product of the biggest choke in the history of the Open Championship. However, even if Van De Velde had won that tourney, he'd be a nobody today just like Lawrie is. Even so, Van De Velde was dominating that tourney and he wasn't winning because of luck as Curtis did, but in the end I guess you could say that Lawrie was a product of both a very tricked up Carnoustie and a major choke by Mr. Van De Velde.
And Van De Velde has proven to be a player worthy of being considered as a great champion since that time? He was a product of the toughest major championship that I've seen in my lifetime (a short time frame, although I don't believe many others had the winner at +5 since the 1970s) as well...the leaderboard was a hodge podge of nobodies with a few of the top players of the time sprinkled in....about what you'd expect from a setup on which luck plays a bigger part than skill. :nodsmiley
And Van De Velde has proven to be a player worthy of being considered as a great champion since that time? He was a product of the toughest major championship that I've seen in my lifetime (a short time frame, although I don't believe many others had the winner at +5 since the 1970s) as well...the leaderboard was a hodge podge of nobodies with a few of the top players of the time sprinkled in....about what you'd expect from a setup on which luck plays a bigger part than skill. :nodsmiley
Read a little closer to what I said: "However, even if Van De Velde had won that tourney, he'd be a nobody today just like Lawrie is." I totally agree that Van De Velde was a bum before and would be a bum today just like he already is, but for that one week he hit some very solid golf shots (not flukes by any means) and he seemed to be playing like a Goosen type (remember Goosen came out of nowhere at the 2001 US Open and everyone expected him to choke, which he obviously did not). Like Goosen, he was very steady for 3.99 rounds of golf until that last hole. Unlike Goosen, he didn't find a way to win the tournament...and unlike Goosen, he went right back to being a bum again.
TTU, all I was contending was that Van de Velde was only in the position to choke in the first place because of the course setup. Had it been set up in a less ridiculus way, I don't believe he'd have been in contention to begin with. Of course, Mother Nature did have a little something to do with the events as they unfolded that week as well. :nodsmiley
This is the US Open at Pinehurst #2, not a tricked up British Open course that didn't reward good shots. You won't see a "nobody" win this week.
You're probably right, but I don't see it as impossible. Steve Jones won in 1996 at Oakland Hills, he's not exactly a household name. It's highly unlikely, if history is any indicator... but... imo, it's not impossible.
You're probably right, but I don't see it as impossible. Steve Jones won in 1996 at Oakland Hills, he's not exactly a household name. It's highly unlikely, if history is any indicator... but... imo, it's not impossible.
I think you're right infidel, because the USGA seemed very pleased with the setup today. I was NOT happy to see these guys stiffing pins all over the place and basically making it look easy thanks to the softness of the greens. If the course stays the same, the nobodies DEFINITELY have a much better chance than they would otherwise. The harder it plays, the more you'll see the cream (Tiger, Vijay, Goosen, Phil, Furyk, Els, Donald, Toms, etc) rise to the top.
The US Open has produced more than its fair share of freak winners on crazy courses. Andy North has only won two PGA tournaments, both US opens. Carnastie was a weather controlled tournament where they lengthened the rough because the forecast was for no wind. When the wind blew , there was not time to change the course.St Georges was a case of choking as Tiger,DL3 and Bjorn were both in a position to win , but backed off leaving Curtis on top.
June 16th, 2005, 05:42 PM
He was a product of the toughest major championship that I've seen in my lifetime (a short time frame, although I don't believe many others had the winner at +5 since the 1970s) as well...the leaderboard was a hodge podge of nobodies with a few of the top players of the time sprinkled in....about what you'd expect from a setup on which luck plays a bigger part than skill. :nodsmiley
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
